memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Template talk:Sidebar episode
I created this template to see how well it would work... I'm not planning to go through and do some crazy revisionist application to every episode, but I want to see what other people think. The pros of using this (as I did in Prototype (episode)) are that it makes it clear if some information has been omitted, it helps if - although I don't see it happening - we ever wanted to change the format of the sidebar, and it makes things simpler particularly on episodes where there's no image (I like the no_image_yet.jpg idea, but dunno how you guys feel). It also provides a simple way to add ep pages in the event of a new Trek series, and in general using templates is seen as a good sign on Wikis. The cons are that all the ep pages have this sidebar, implemented manually, and from the number of variables you have to provide, one might argue that there's no point to using a template at all. Please let me know what you think. --Schrei 21:27, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) * I believe someone has argued that, I know I've read it here somewhere, but I can't think of where at the moment. This was brought up before, but voted down because of the variables as "illogical" i think. - AJHalliwell 19:57, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) ** What exactly is illogical about it? They seem pretty constant across episodes to me - the only part that would possibly be bad is the episode number (overall, not in a particular season) since it's pretty close to the production number in most cases. --Schrei 20:01, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) I think that would help a lot in cleaning the markups of the episodes. However, I don't think that putting the in the template for the writer, director and story is a good idea as it will lead to some nonsense in the article itself (like story=Ira Steven Behr]] & Robert Hewitt Wolfe in the [[Past Tense episode). I would also recommend updating the documentation to * advertise the template (as I just did a dupplicate without knowing it) or * say why we shouldn't use a template (the illogical stuff) to prevent future lost of time Rcog 17:54, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) I would also recommend doing something about broadcast number (see episodes from TOS). Either make a special template for TOS or add something about it in this one.Rcog 17:56, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) For one thing, not all episodes will have "story by" and "teleplay by" credits; some will have "written by". In the former cases, if a writer worked on the story but not the teleplay or vice versa, it is so noted. In the latter case, any writers listed worked on both the story AND the teleplay. That's just one of the variables A.J. mentioned. --From Andoria with Love 18:20, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Yes, that's why i think both templates should be deleted, but we should probably do what Rcog mentioned about noting why not to create the template for this, especially when we have templates for the bottom half of the page he listed, the navigation templates. 1985 18:26, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) Template:Infobox Episode or Template:Sidebar episode Duplicates. do we need either? 1985 17:15, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) :I suggest deleting the Template:Infobox Episode. I created it without knowing it had already been done. Rcog 18:00, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) *I think your design is a little better but since the other one is on two episodes it might be best to just modify existing one. Also sorry about the deletion notice, i'm still new here. 1985 18:17, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Comment I believe this was brought up on Ten Forward or somewhere recently, and that it had to many variables to be of much use. I've come to like our current tables, more adaptable. - AJHalliwell 19:44, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Keep At least one of them. I know that it may not be perfect as it is (the variable arguments), but still think that it would be better than nothing. We could refine it later (with sub-templates, for example) and leave some blank fields for the moment. I think it still improves the clarity when we edit episodes articles and lower the chances for a newbie to make formatting mistakes. Rcog 20:12, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Preferably Delete both, however, seeing that Template:Sidebar episode is being used on two pages, if anyone should be kept, it might as well be that one. --Alan del Beccio 08:01, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Archived'--Alan del Beccio 19:34, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC) Further comments Seeing that this had no consensus to delete, we should at least make sure that the definitions make sense. First, I think we don't need two images. Let's remove the bottom one from the template. If it is a short episode summary, one image should be enough - if it is a long one, more images should be placed in the text, not the sidebar. Second, let's combine "Year" and "Stardate" into a new field "Date". That way, we could use the same template for ENT episodes (which have no stardate) and all the other episodes (Example: "Date: Stardate 44001.1 (2366)"). Comments? -- Cid Highwind 13:06, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC) : Isn't there a way to have a template, only show fields that are filled in? So we could set up a template with all of the common fields we would usually want, but only the ones used would show on the page. —MJBurrage 02:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC) There is (or better, there might be in the future), but we should still find out what information we always want to have on the sidebar (=mandatory), what information we sometimes want to have (=optional) and what information we don't want to have at all. See below for a first suggestion, and add/discuss more as necessary. -- Cid Highwind 09:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC) : Does Memory Alpha support Parser Functions? : As for the fields below, I would suggest short names when possible to avoid two line boxes, so: :* "Prod. #" instead of "Production Number:" :* "Teleplay" instead of "Teleplay by:" : With Parser Functions, I could dust of my programming brain cells and make the template only show filled in fields (so we could use "Writer(s)", "Story", "Teleplay", "Based on", and only see the ones used for each episode. —MJBurrage 20:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC) According to Memory_Alpha:Template_for_Episode, every episode seems to have a production number (mandatory then). From that same page, we already "agreed" on a date format. From the discussion below, teleplay, story and written should all be optional. The only problem I see for the moment is with TOS "season" and "broadcast number" fields. They could be combined into the episode field for that series, but that will differ from the "standard" of the other series. I think that is a good compromise if we are to avoid clashes with TOS zealots :-) --Rcog 04:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC) :Better yet, a separate template for TOS episodes might be in order. I don't think I see the point in all this though, since the code is in place for all pages where the template would be used (barring a new series of course). --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 05:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC) ::As I see it, the point is standardization and clarity. I would be practical to be able to change the disposition of the informations in the sidebar without having to iterate through all the articles (even with a bot). It would also be a mean to enforce the standards. Also, it helps separating the container from the content (same reason we don't use html tags in articles) and put the article's focus on information instead of disposition. -- Rcog 16:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Exactly - all that, plus it helps avoid duplication by moving as much formatting/content as possible from several hundred individual pages to one central template. With "parser functions" (that's what I had in mind as well, MJBurrage, see MA:TF for a related discussion), it will be possible to even avoid having a separate template just for TOS episodes. According to the explanation by Shran below, I will move the various credits to the "optional" section. I agree that we should follow the official guidelines for crediting here, and not take any shortcuts. I also don't think we should abbreviate too much... BTW, thanks for the link to the Template_for_Episodes -- Cid Highwind 11:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Mandatory ;Image : One image, should depict an interesting/important scene of the episode ;Series : Series this episode is from (Uses abbreviation: TOS, TNG, ...) ;Episode : Link to the appropriate season article, shown as "1x02" (Uses variables Series, Season, Episode) ;Production number : To appear in the "Episode" field. Apparently, all episodes have a "production number" ;Original airdate : "YYYY-MM-DD" is the way to go, according to Memory_Alpha:Template_for_Episode. ::For the airdate, note that many episodes are in the format DD MONTH YYYY, with the month and year bit a link, such as 2 June 1994. Several dates even have a week of at the start of the date. Perhaps the "policy" should be revisited for this. After all, with dates in numerical format, there is always the European vs US confusion possibility there. -- Sulfur 12:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC) :I think YYYY-MM-DD is a standardized international format. If we want to change to a different one, why not - but in any case, one and the same format should be used throughout, and if we link, we should probably link the whole date and not just parts of it, even if that means using a pipe. -- Cid Highwind 15:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC) ;Date : For (optionally) both year and stardate. An alternative would be to have a mandatory "Year" and an optional "Stardate field". Preferences? ::I like the Unknown Stardate listing on many episodes. The DVD releases all have a Stardate field listed, and this is contained in those that are not said during the episodes, and I think that's a good way to do it. -- Sulfur 12:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC) ;Director : Director... :) Optional ;Written by/Story by/Teleplay by : According to the explanation below, either the first one or the other two are given for any episode - so all of them have to be optional. ;Broadcast number : Important for TOS episodes only(?), so should be optional (=hidden if not available). Not included ;Second image : In my opinion, any further images should be part of the main article, not part of the sidebar. Unsure How it works Okay, I am extremely tired at the moment, so I'm gonna try to explain this as coherently as possible but it is asked that you please bear with me. In simplest form, there are two parts to writing an episode or film: the story process and the script-writing process. The story process comprises the layout of the overall concept and plot; the script expands on the story by including, among other things, dialogue. In film, the script is called a screenplay; in television, it's called a teleplay. For the sake of simplicity, let's say we have two writers working on a particular project. Now, if both writers worked on both the story AND the script, then the credit would be Written by. If one writer wrote the story and another writer wrote the script, then the former would receive a story by credit and the latter would receive a screenplay by (in film) or a teleplay by (in TV). For example, for Star Trek: Nemesis, John Logan was the sole recipient of the Screenplay by credit for that film because he was the only one who worked on the script. However, he co-wrote the movie's initial story with Rick Berman and Brent Spiner, therefore Logan, Berman & Spiner all get a Story by credit. And, of course, if something being written is based off of something that came previously, then the previous project and the person(s) responsible for that project get a Based Upon or Based On credit. For example, all the live-action Trek spin-offs and all the films have the credit "Based Upon Star Trek Created by Gene Roddenberry. :Now, having said all that, I believe we should label the writers '''as they were credited in the episode or film. We can't simply say, for example, that Nemesis was "Written by John Logan, Rick Berman and Brent Spiner" because that would imply that all three worked on the story and the script. It would be best to inform users of the proper credits than to misguide them. So, the written by/teleplay by/story by/screenplay by credit is something we're just going to have to change manually to fit the subject. And I hope all of that made sense... --From Andoria with Love 18:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :Oh, a bit of trivia for ya... there are times when more than one writer will take shots at a story or script. When two or more writers work together on a story or script, the two names are seperated by an ampersand (&'''). If one writer worked on one or more versions of the story or script and another writer later revised it, then their credits would be seperated by the word '''and. For example, since Logan, Berman, and Spiner all worked on the story for Nemesis together, they received the credit: Story by John Logan, Rick Berman & Brent Spiner. If, for instance, John Logan had written the originally story and Berman and Spiner came back later and revised it, then the credit would have been Story by John Logan and Rick Berman & Brent Spiner; or, if Spiner had revised Logan and Berman's work, you'd see Story by John Logan & Rick Berman and Brent Spiner. Likewise, if all three had worked on different drafts of the story, then the credit would have been John Logan and Rick Berman and Brent Spiner. Isn't that great to know? :) --From Andoria with Love 18:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC) ::Made enough sense for me, thanks :) -- Cid Highwind 12:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)